60 or less FPS on i7 8700 with GTX 1070Ti + SSD

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Yes. Gw2 is dated. It runs at 2 threads with one thread that deals with network, sound etc while the other thread that does everything else. It is because it runs at 2 threads while having a lot of bling bling, it actually single core performance demanding.

 

It actually uses more than 2 cores and performance is further increased with 4 or more, what comes next is how the engine is utilizing these cores, here's a quick comparison : 

Performance can be also be affected by other programs running in the background. A simple example is with dual screen setups, it's common to have a dual screen setup with the game on one side and browser on the other, if you open a youtube video at 1080p while gaming, chances are you'll suffer a performance hit already.

 

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Yes. Gw2 is dated. It runs at 2 threads with one thread that deals with network, sound etc while the other thread that does everything else. It is because it runs at 2 threads while having a lot of bling bling, it actually single core performance demanding.

>

> It actually uses more than 2 cores and performance is further increased with 4 or more, what comes next is how the engine is utilizing these cores, here's a quick comparison : 

> Performance can be also be affected by other programs running in the background. A simple example is with dual screen setups, it's common to have a dual screen setup with the game on one side and browser on the other, if you open a youtube video at 1080p while gaming, chances are you'll suffer a performance hit already.

>

 

I hope you disabled the cores via bootup configuration.

Also, have you tried 3 cores?

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> I hope you disabled the cores via bootup configuration.

> Also, have you tried 3 cores?

 

I can set the game to use any cores/threads I wish before launching it to obtain the results. I just gave it a shot on 3 cores, performances fluctuates a lot, it's better than 2 but not optimal. To have a smooth experience you need at least 4 threads for this game, be it a dual core with hyper threading or 4 full cores.

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > Yes. Gw2 is dated. It runs at 2 threads with one thread that deals with network, sound etc while the other thread that does everything else. It is because it runs at 2 threads while having a lot of bling bling, it actually single core performance demanding.

>

> It actually uses more than 2 cores and performance is further increased with 4 or more, what comes next is how the engine is utilizing these cores, here's a quick comparison

> Performance can be also be affected by other programs running in the background. A simple example is with dual screen setups, it's common to have a dual screen setup with the game on one side and browser on the other, if you open a youtube video at 1080p while gaming, chances are you'll suffer a performance hit already.

>

 

Guild Wars 2 uses about 41 Threads, so the more core you have, the better it runs:


The problem is the main thread is a bottleneck that does a lot of the work alone. Of course if you disable cores, the work they were doing will also go to the main thread causing even heavier delays and lack of performance. It's that main thread that is the problem

[MrFayth.3546]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

>but the core of the engine (threaded performance) was never updated to use all cores properly.

They have mentioned moving some things(never specified) away from the main render thread to reduce demand on it, but that was months ago and I cant find the link now.

 

> The good news with that same example I used is that Crysis 2 and onwards threads wonderfully, Crysis 3 although way more impressive visually compared to Crysis 1, runs at almost double (or even triple) the FPS because it is threaded better. Which means Anet could pull this off too if they wanted to spend the required resources to do so.

 

 

 

And Crysis 1 was designed solely for PC with large levels and tons of foliage(tropical island, after all).

 

Crysis 2 and 3 were dumbed down significantly so they could actually run on consoles.

Plus you had almost zero room to explore in 2 and 3. Might as well have been a rail-shooter.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"MrFayth.3546" said:

> They have mentioned moving some things(never specified) away from the main render thread to reduce demand on it, but that was months ago and I cant find the link now.

 

It was a reddit post by an engine developer. They DO move things out of the main thread, the game uses ~40 Threads now. The problem is that the main thread is still a heavy bottleneck.

 

> And Crysis 1 was designed solely for PC with large levels and tons of foliage(tropical island, after all).

> Crysis 2 and 3 were dumbed down significantly so they could actually run on consoles.

> Plus you had almost zero room to explore in 2 and 3. Might as well have been a rail-shooter.

 

Crysis 1 also run on consoles (Xbox360 and PS3) with the same levels and foliage as the PC version (excluding the level Ascension) the big difference was that Crysis 1 on consoles used Cry Engine 3 while Crysis 1 on PC used Cry Engine 2. Cry Engine 3 was spreading the load on multiple cores much better than Cry Engine 2, in fact it was certain that Crysis 1 with Cry Engine 2 wouldn't even run on Xbox360 or PS3, but THE SAME game using the next engine run on the consoles of the era, even at 20-30fps.

 

Crytek turned to a third party developer to port their entire Crysis 1 game over to their brand new engine, I'm sure if Anet really wanted to (and if it was technically possible) they could port the entire Guild Wars 2 game to a new, much better optimized, engine.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > I hope you disabled the cores via bootup configuration.

> > Also, have you tried 3 cores?

>

> I can set the game to use any cores/threads I wish before launching it to obtain the results. I just gave it a shot on 3 cores, performances fluctuates a lot, it's better than 2 but not optimal. To have a smooth experience you need at least 4 threads for this game, be it a dual core with hyper threading or 4 full cores.

>

 

Erm. That's strange.

 

According to process explorer, gw2 do use up to 3 cpu threads but it doesn't go beyond that while having one process thread aka main thread almost fully utilizing one cpu thread.

This suggest that your fluctuation isn't because of gw2 need 4 cpu threads to function but because of your background processes.

 

The reason why we say is 2 cpu threads instead of 3 because it doesn't really fully utilizing the 3rd thread either, is not even half of the 3rd thread capacity either. Also, it also means that the game isn't really scaling to number of threads but rather hardcoded to use that number of threads.

 

The reasons why I mention scripting and simulation because it matters. Some programming approach doesn't readily support multi-threading. Multithreading is simply the concept of running tasks simultaneously but it doesn't mean that we can speed up a chain of tasks. In other words, tasks that required preceding tasks to be completed cannot be multithreaded. Depending on how the game engine is designed to simulate the environment, there might be tasks that cannot be multithreaded at all which why some suggest require rewriting of engine.

 

Edit: I think is more understandable if I say that when people mention multithreading, they actually asking for core scaling, to utilizing as many cpu threads available on the pc.

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> According to process explorer, gw2 do use up to 3 cpu threads but it doesn't go beyond that while having one process thread aka main thread almost fully utilizing one cpu

 

If you look at the screenshot uploaded by @"orfeoulis.4325" you can see all his 4 cores / 8 threads are loaded, the game can clearly make use of more than 2-3:


Having lots of cores however doesn't mean more fps, but rather more stable fps, less dips.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"ArmoredVehicle.2849" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > According to process explorer, gw2 do use up to 3 cpu threads but it doesn't go beyond that while having one process thread aka main thread almost fully utilizing one cpu

>

> If you look at the screenshot uploaded by @"orfeoulis.4325" you can see all his 4 cores / 8 threads are loaded, the game can clearly make use of more than 2-3:

> 

> Having lots of cores however doesn't mean more fps, but rather more stable fps, less dips.

 

Maybe I should use the word core instead of thread to prevent misunderstanding.

 

Threads don't need to fix itself to specific cores. The system will manage and decide which cores to run the threads. It can be core #0 at one point, it can be core #9 at another, it don't really matters. A real life example would be service counters. There can be 100 counters and you don't need customers to visit specific counter to get their things done.

 

When people are saying it is only running certain amount of cores, it means from the efficiency point of view. Using the service counters as example, it means not using all the counters available.

 

When people complains about multi-threading, in general they are basically complaining that not all the counters are utilized, that the customers are queuing at half the counters while the other half being empty.

 

Of course, technically, game is already multithreaded but people don't complain in technical perspective.

 

Lastly, as for why you get this idea that more cores is more stable. That generally because you keep on forgotting that there are background processors. Be it your driver, your windows, your antivirus, your windows update, your windows time, your network drivers etc etc etc. All of those eat core (take up service counters) too. If you have only 2 cores, then it just means the background processors gonna compete with your game for processing power. In gw2 case, it doesn't use more than 2.5 cores.

 

Btw, process explorer is actually a software, that breakdowns the threads and show the accompanying cpu utilization for each thread.

[Maze.3825]

Getting to 2400 DDR4 or higher will grant you some more dividends. I think.

[Solvar.7953]

Just to follow up on the service counter example: It doesn't matter if there are 100 service counters open if the transaction you need to do is very complex - it may take you 15 minutes to do that transaction, and the fact that there are 20 empty counters does not speed up the process. It only speeds up the process of when you get to the counter.

In the GW2 scenario, the limiting factor is that one very complex transaction. The main improvements to cpus in recent years have been adding more counters (cores) not making that counter attendant more efficient.

And going back to that counter argument, if you could break up your transaction into 3 smaller ones, each taking 5 minutes, and have 3 different counters process it at the same time, it goes a lot faster. However, splitting that transaction may not be simple (or in some cases impossible) - if you are selling stocks & buying something else, you don't have the money to buy something until that sell transaction is complete.

 

[ArmoredVehicle.2849]

A few scenarios to sum up my thoughts in a simple way:

a) Running 3 Cores - Standing in an instanced area by yourself in a fixed spot you get 60fps / in Event A with 50 people: You get **30fps**

b) Running 4+ Cores - Standing in an instanced area by yourself in a fixed spot you get 60fps / in Event A with 50 people: You get **35-40fps**

 

What I'm saying is that if the rendering thread (presumably the core that is always 100%) gives you 60fps max, you will get that amount even in an empty area because it's hitting the IPC limit (unless you raise the clock speed). Meanwhile more cores will not give you more than 60 but will try to help it remain that way during heavy events, and even then there is a limit to how many it can use efficiently.

[plushiesoda.8150]

Deleted in protest of anet leaving support ticket #7495730 without answer since October 10th 2019. It's sad how if this were a money-related issue you'd have answered within a couple of hours. At this point I'm not even mad, but disappointed by the mediocrity displayed by your community managers.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"plushiesoda.8150" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > Those threads rise every week. The answer is always the same: GW2 uses a 12 year old engine with dx9c. It's horribly optimised. And that's why you get kitten FPS.

>

> I get between 20 to 44 FPSs in PoF's maps (but first one) on a 1.8ghz pentium dual core, nvidia 9500gt 1gb ram ddr2, and 4gb of ram ddr2 at mid settings on a 23p or so monitor at native resolution (1440x900)

>

> If that's horribly optimized I seriously have no idea what a good optimization is. Of course I realize that there's a huge difference when talking about ancient toasters like the one I mentioned and that gw2's engine doesn't truly makes use of modern hardware's capabilities, still... horribly is going way overboard

>

> I have no idea why opener gets such a low FPS count, giant screen with a vga cable? windowed full screen? high motion blur power? ultra settings on meta events? too many background processes? outdated drivers? who knows, what I know is that my main PC (an old i5 gen 2, gtx 750ti) gets more FPSs than openner's, even at ultra settings.

>

> **Personally I feel that the problem with GW2 is that it tries to load everything without giving priorities** , for example AoE fields, event, raids, fractals mobs/bosses, skill effects (warrior, guardian's bubbles), "underground" mount's "bug" on bad rigs, are things that should have priority when loading instead of your random NPC, mob or tree... it gets so annoying when playing a heavy meta like istam's or dragon stand and AoE fields or bosses don't load... sigh even worse is when nameplates show up "somewhere else" of where the mob truly is at.

 

I bought my actual PC specifically be cause of the GW2 release back in 2012. Since I play many games on consoles anyway, I don't need to buy a new gamer pc every now and then. That said: I still run a i7 whaterver gen (2012 model something) and a GTX 670, 16 gb ram and I usually get 30-40 fps in PoF and around 60-100 in old maps. This just shows that newer rigs don't really help or improve the perforamnce. Though when I see some vids of streamers/youtubers it surely runs a bit smoother but not vastly. Oh and I use almost maxed out settings, though with some culling. That's the bottleneck of low fps for most machines.

[Zem.4139]

My setup :

I7 8086k , 5Ghz

Ram 16Go 4266 Mhz

1080 Ti aorus Xtreme Edition

1 SSD M2 W10 64Bit

1SSD M2 Gw2

Monitor 3440*1440.

Gw2 all in ultra/max

FPS @ Istan : 14

[Smeerlap.2698]

> @"orfeoulis.4325" said:

> @"wanya.1697" hmmm so you are telling me that the fact that core 0 and 4 are at 80% is the problem here? Doesn't seem I can to much about it :( Quite disappointing tbh, really wanted to come back to gw2, but playing at 40fps ruins it.

>

> 

>

>

>

 

I am not a PC wizard by far, but Animations, Reflections, Textures and Shaders have a huge impact on FPS.. i have tinkered for days to find a balance also with character model quality.

I really think GW2 can't handle these settings on high, doesn't matter if you run a Uber PC.

My suggestion is keep Animations (low) <--- has a HUGE impact (flashy effects ghost infusions for example etc), Reflections (low or off), Textures (low-medium), Shaders (low-medium).

I got a Ryzen 7 -1800x (8core <--- don't think this matters in GW2) + GTX 1060 (6gb) and after some tweaking and trying different configurations I have between 40(50) -140 fps depending on how crowded it is.. and didn't have to sacrifice a lot of the *good looks* in the game.

Meta's never give me stuttering of fps problems for example.

 

If you want my settings just message me in game, good luck.

[Mingyue.6402]

Hello,

Just wanted to add my own setup + settings and what FPS I'm getting since I have also spent a lot of time to make the game run as smooth as possible with the best possible graphics.

 

CPU: I5-8600k (not overclocked)

GPU: GTX 1080 TI 11GB

RAM: 16GB DDR 4 Corsair vengeance

SSD NVMe M.2 256GB

Monitor: ASUS ROG PG278QR 1440p / 144hz

Below is screenshot of my ingame graphical settings.

Note: I'm using "Let application decide" choice in Nvidia control panel, not any Nvidia custom settings at all. Also currently running my monitor on 60hz only without G-SYNC.

https://i.imgur.com/Y8Hyo3U.jpg

The picture was taken in Divinity's Reach near Trading Post and I unchecked V-SYNC to show true FPS I'm getting just for this post. Otherwise I run using V-sync and FPS cap to 60.

 

I actually don't agree with those saying you should lower your graphic settings if you got good setup (like 1060-1080 gtx and some decent CPU). I was using these exact settings I posted above with my old setup which was 4th gen I5-4670 + GTX 970 @ 1080p / 60hz and I was getting mostly constant 60FPS except crowded cities and some big meta events like Teq or HoT maps.

 

Currently in central Tyria maps, I can go up to 190 fps (interiers, caves etc) or around 90-120 fps in the rest of maps on max settings (even with shadows on Ultra). In huge meta events like Auric Basin, Dragon Stand or Tangled Depths I always lower Character model limit to the Lowest and keep the rest as seen on screen above and get around 40-50 fps even if those fights. I can dip to mid 30 in extreme cases.

 

So I advise you, try these settings and see what FPS you will get in divinity reach for example. You should get steady 60 fps except at the Minister Waypoint where I usually get around 55 fps since there are a lot of people usually. If you are not getting there FPS, there is something seriously wrong because even on 1070 it should get at least same, if not better results then mine setup since I got I think a bit weaker CPU which is what matters the most. Even gtx 1060 is more than enough for this game not to mention 1070 or 1080.